How Risky Is It To Not Wear A Mask? The Role Of Affect And Risk Perception In The Relationship Between Message Frame And Preventative Health Behaviours - Info and Reading Options

The Internet Archive:

In declaring the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) a public health emergency of international concern on 30th January 2020, the World Health Organization stressed on the need for research to coordinate efforts to minimize the risk posed by the virus (2019-NCoV Outbreak Is an Emergency of International Concern, 2020). This is possible via global compliance of preventive health behaviours such as wearing a mask, maintaining social distance, and following lockdown protocols (see West, Michie, Rubin, & Amlot, 2020). As these behaviours are in contrast to the dominant lifestyle people are used to, compliance to COVID-19 related guidelines involves tactful communication navigating their risk perception. In a study conducted in the USA, risk perception was found to be a predictor of health behaviours recommended by experts. Specifically, it was observed that assigning greater fatal risk to COVID-19 aligned with greater undertaking of recommended health behaviours, such as not shaking hands, avoiding crowded spaces, and vice versa (Niepel et al., 2020). Therefore, it is vital that national bodies understand the pulse of citizens and broadcast messages that maximize preventive health behaviours. Risk communication is a widely studied field, with due importance placed on message framing. One method of message framing is based on valence. Herein, consistent messages are framed either positively (gains; positive consequences of performing an action) or negatively (losses; negative consequences of not performing an action). In one of the early studies on message framing, Tversky and Kahneman (1981) found that participants did not have a specific preference for risky or guaranteed outcomes, as long as they were framed positively, as opposed to negatively. Moreover, risky alternatives were preferred over guaranteed ones when the former were delivered with positive message frames and the latter with negative message frames (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Over the years, various research studies have explored the phenomena of message frames impacting health-related behaviours (Abhyankar et al., 2008; Bartels et al., 2010; Berry & Carson, 2010; Keyworth et al., 2018; O’Connor et al., 2005; Jones, Sinclair, & Courneya, 2003), with no agreement on which frame is better at increasing compliance. A general observation is that gain-framed messages are better than loss-framed messages in promoting prevention behaviours (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012). In a culturally diverse sample, with people belonging to United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Mexico, Japan, and South Korea, factors significantly associated with risk perception were: experience with the virus, social amplification through information received from family and friends, prosociality, individualistic worldviews, personal and collective efficacy, trust, and personal knowledge (Dryhurst et al., 2020). In the aforementioned study, risk communication is highlighted, with specific emphasis on social amplification of messaging via friends and family. Therefore, in the present study, the probable increase in prevention behaviours is discussed such that individuals act in accordance with expert guidelines and against COVID-19 contamination. Whereas health advocacy is executed against the backdrop of message framing, the interplay of emotions also needs to be accounted for, as emotions heavily influence decisions and may hinder accurate risk perception (Sjöberg, 2007). Emotions play a vital role in risky situations as emotional influences, including feelings such as worry, fear, dread, or anxiety, affect responses (including decision-making under) to risky situations (Loewenstein et al., 2001). Further, in an experimental study, negative affective mental imagery of risk consequences was found to drastically exacerbate risk perception. Contrastingly, positive mental imagery of risk consequences was observed to decrease perceived risk. Moreover, these were driven by stress exerting its influence on risk perception, even when independent of mentally imagining a risky activity (Sobkow et al., 2016). The role of emotions is highlighted owing to the accompanying epistemic access to moral values, especially in cases of moral judgements involving complex moral considerations. Therefore, emotions become a source of ethical knowledge about risk (Roeser, 2012). This can be extended to the purview of risk perception, analysis, and communication in all aspects, including that of the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In these times, moral decisions are a matter of immediate life and death for oneself and others. Therefore, effective communication, with an aim to maximize expert-recommended behaviour is essential to mitigate the spread of the virus.

Search for “How Risky Is It To Not Wear A Mask? The Role Of Affect And Risk Perception In The Relationship Between Message Frame And Preventative Health Behaviours” downloads:

Visit our Downloads Search page to see if downloads are available.

Find “How Risky Is It To Not Wear A Mask? The Role Of Affect And Risk Perception In The Relationship Between Message Frame And Preventative Health Behaviours” in Libraries Near You:

Read or borrow “How Risky Is It To Not Wear A Mask? The Role Of Affect And Risk Perception In The Relationship Between Message Frame And Preventative Health Behaviours” from your local library.

• The WorldCat Libraries Catalog: Find a copy of “How Risky Is It To Not Wear A Mask? The Role Of Affect And Risk Perception In The Relationship Between Message Frame And Preventative Health Behaviours” at a library near you.